I find this detail in the recent Novak Djokovic's Australian visa saga quite interesting.
On Monday, 10 January 2022, when Judge Kelly delivered his decision to reinstate Djokovic's visa, Christopher Tran (the lawyer acting for the government) told the judge that the Minister for Immigration is now contemplating using his "personal power of cancellation" (which is exactly what happened days later and was sustained by the Federal Court on 16 January 2022).
So, when Mr Tran said that to Judge Kelly, the judge thanked him for the warning, adding: "I could have been something approaching incandescent if I had discovered that for the first time... this evening or the early hours of tomorrow."
Why did Mr Tran warn the judge? Was that an attempt to make the judge change his mind and think again, like "look man, why bother reinstating the visa if it will [possibly/probably/likely/definitely] be cancelled anyway"?
Is that what should be read between the lines?
If so, how does it sit with lawyer/courtroom ethics and the expectation of judicial independence? Mr Tran would have known that Judge Kelly was supposed to make decisions independently on the merits of the case — not taking into account what the exec branch of the government might then do. Does what Mr Tran said to the judge demonstrate that he in fact did not necessarily expect the judge to be entirely independent, but expected him to possibly be prone to make decisions taking into account the politics and what the government might do?
Was that the exec branch attempt to bully the judicial branch?